Hmm… A direct democracy would be even more moral according to your axiom. An axiom with which I and probably most others disagree with. The reason we have a republican form of government and a constitution is in part to constrain the power of the mob.
But you are correct in that things can be changed. I never asserted otherwise. Some historical things will not be changed in the next 100 years and one is the role of states. The states will work to protect their power from being diluted. I think we should add a few, Puerto Rico, the Pacific Islands, Canada. But they don’t ask me.
I’m with you on our Pacific territories forming a state, and also with Puerto Rico being a state; however, neither group appears to have a really viable number of residents supporting statehood. Why, though, would you want to add Canada to the US? Canada is doing rather well as a country on its own and their population certainly is not agitating to become part of the USA.
And you understand that I was using “one person, one vote” as an example of a principle (because octopus asked me to clarify the use of the term “principle”) as opposed to making some assertion about the principle’s application here?
You do understand that we elect politicians because most of us don’t have the time or inclination to understand law and public policy in depth, right? I might have a feeling about something, maybe a strong feeling, but their thoughtful experience trumps my emotional ignorance.
If their overall societal goals differ from mine, or if they appear to be working more in the service of lining their own pockets, that’s something else. In general, though, I think our government would be a lot better if they didn’t bend to the people’s ignorance quite so much. My strong feeling about boundaries doesn’t rise to the level of something a politician should cater to. My strong feeling that the D.C. situation is a solvable problem does.
No statehood for DC. I get to tell people I wasn’t born in a US state. That would still be true if statehood were granted but it would cloud the issue. Clearly the new state couldn’t be called Washington, so the fun of telling people I was born in the District of Columbia, or that I am Columbian would be diminished as well once people get used to what DC means.
In actuality, even though people don’t like the idea for political reasons, the land should be returned to the states of Maryland and Virginia reserving federal control over the federal properties but not the state residency of anyone who happens to live on those properties.
The US is anomalous among federations with a “Capital District” in not providing a voting legislative representation for it. Brasilia, Canberra, Mexico DF and others do provide such a representation, even if modified or adjusted.
What happens, is that the US Constitution presumes one and only one voting, represented Federal Component: the States. Anything else is Congress’ subjects. There were at the time failures of imagination at work: nobody thought (or of they did were outvoted and told they had a solution in search of a problem) of there being territories with sufficient population (of citizens) and economic activity that would be given internal home rule without being admitted as states; nor when setting up the nature of the District, of it being any more than a smallish “garrison town” with a mostly transient population. It was unexpected to have it grow into a city of over 650,000 permanent civilian residents, more than a couple of states.
Well, there was another reason: In the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, rioting unpaid soldiers besieged the Continental Congress in Philadelphia and the government of Pennsylvania did not lift a finger to help them. The Congresscritters decided they eventually would need a federal capital under exclusive federal control.
To me, this is still relevant. While no expects riots in the streets right away, lots of stuff happens, Washington is still a center of protests. Many of these occur over very heated issues. If a separate government wants to pressure Congress, or the President, and lets things get out of hand out of self-interest or sheer apathy, it could turn into a very ugly scene indeed. Even barring anything like that, however, the government has a reasonable vested interest in controlling their own locality and ensuring that everything functions well enough for the purposes of government.
For my part, I’m a big believer that government shouldn’t be geographically concentrated, and that in this day and age of instantaneous global communication that’s increasingly a relic. But as long as we do have that, it makes sense for the Federal government to keep order in and around itself.
Leaving all of that aside, the real issue here is that most of the D.C. area was never intended to grow the way it has. Right now, Washington is absurdly wealthy compared to all but a few comparable areas, which is particularly problematic in that the city produces virtually nothing and almost no economic activity takes place within its borders. As an administrative center, this may make sense. However, it also has a potential side effect of putting residents and workers at odds with others who do.
Cite for Maryland not wanting DC? Not saying you’re wrong, I just honestly haven’t heard that. Seems to me that Maryland is already dealing with the DC suburbs (including PG county, as you say) but not getting all of the sweet, sweet, tax revenue that a heavily gentrified DC would assuredly bring in. Maybe I’m missing something, though.
I understand that DC doesn’t want to be Maryland. I lived there for 5 years, I never got sick of the smell of my “I live in the District” farts. It’s a very cool identity, I wouldn’t want to give it up either.
The “taxation without representation” argument seems like a no-brainer as well, but honestly, why should the rest of the country acquiesce to statehood? It would give a relatively small population center 2 whole senate seats. Of course DC residents would want that, but so what? Just be another big city in a bigger state like everyone else is and quit trying to be special. My podunk midwestern town is more populous than DC proper but we don’t get our own senators, we have to share them with a bunch of other cities.
When a reasonable compromise to attain representation is suggested and DC residents reject it, it makes me question their motivation. Do you really want representation, or will you agree to nothing short of gaming the system in your favor? If DC and Maryland won’t agree to a merger “against the will of the people,” then, whelp, guess we maintain the status quo.
I think the idea Maryland wouldn’t take D.C. is dated, at one point D.C. proper was a hell hole of crime, low property values, and would not have offered much in the way of benefits. That’s largely not the case anymore, while there are still a lot of poor in D.C., if you’ve read some of the recent WaPo articles on the situation if D.C. were an independent state it’d be a “net giver” to the Federal government (i.e. not like Mississippi or Alabama which receive far more in Federal largesse than they pay in as taxes) I don’t see Maryland rejected D.C. these days.
Because that’s closer to the justice and equality America aspires to, than what we have now?
(ETA: Same for Puerto Rico.)
But… state or not, it is special. The national capital. The official face of America to the world. We ought to take pride in it, cherish it, give it every consideration.
I’ve always believed that the people of DC should have proper representation in Congress, and my general position is that they should get statehood.
I could live with the OP’s solution: fold most of DC into Maryland, and preserve a very small geographic area around the seat of government as a separate capital entity.
More generally, though, i’m not really convinced by the argument that DC shouldn’t get statehood of its own merely because it’s a city. As a general matter of principle, why should 680,000 DC residents have any less right to be considered a state than 580,000 residents of Wyoming? As others have noted, there are plenty of countries that manage to combine some sort of federal district or territory with proper federal voting and representation rights for their populations.
I understand that, as a lefty, i’m open to accusations that my support for DC statehood is largely one of political expedience. I really do believe, however, that this would be the right thing to do even if the area’s politics did a 180 and it became a Republican-majority region.
Well, according to Wiki, both of Maryland’s senators have (as recently as 2014) endorsed DC statehood. It might be because they’re both Democrats and would like to see more democrats in the Senate. As a longtime former resident of both Maryland and the District, I can confirm that Marylanders don’t want the District or its residents back in their fold. I can’t find an online cite, but once when Newt Gingrich proposed retroceding DC to Maryland, one of his Maryland colleagues in the House responded by offering to cede it to Georgia instead.
Do you have a cite for Marylanders wanting the District back?